|
God must really be keeping close watch over the Philippines and the
Filipinos. Territorial baselines bills are pending in
Congress—consolidated and passed in the House on second reading
last December. But, as revealed by Rep. Antonio Cuenco, head of the
House foreign relation committee, action on the bill has been
stopped because the Department of Foreign Affairs had told Congress
of China’s objections to the proposed law. He also recounted that
a Chinese embassy official had informed him passage of the bill
would be considered an unfriendly act by the People’s Republic of
China.
If the law had been enacted and not frozen for
fear that China would take offense, we would have given up “an
almost colossal” part of our territory. This is according to Sen.
Miriam Defensor Santiago, who takes pride in being an expert in,
among other things, international law, and is the Senate foreign
relations committee chairwoman.
Santiago has warned that if the Philippines
declares itself an archipelagic state, as the pending House bill
does, the declaration would contradict the Treaty of Paris which
sets the boundaries of our country. The national territory defined
in the 1898 Treaty of Paris, she said, is vaster than what would end
up as our territory under the archipelagic definition allowed by the
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
Under the 1898 Treaty of Paris, Spain ceded the
Philippines to the United States. The Philippine baseline law – in
Republic Act 3046 and RA 5446 – is based on the boundaries defined
under that treaty. Senator Santiago contends that “the Treaty of
Paris sets out the International Treaty Baselines of the Philippine
territorial sea.” But “the bills pending in Congress will
eliminate such limits and thus, the Philippines would lose its
boundaries.”
Declaring the Philippines as an “archipelagic
state” would be a grave error because under the UNCLOS, the
Philippines would end up being entitled to only 12 nautical miles of
the territorial sea. This is “an almost colossal reduction from
the wider boundaries of the International Treaty Limits under the
Treaty of Paris.”
As an “archipelagic state,” Santiago warned,
“our zone of sovereignty would collapse. Our internal waters would
become archipelagic waters where the ships of all states will enjoy
the right of innocent passage. In addition, foreign states would
have the right of so-called archipelagic sea lane passage. Ships of
all states would have the right of passage and their aircraft would
have the right of overflight.”
The Philippines must submit its UNCLOS claims
before the UN’s May 2009 deadline—otherwise we lose any claim we
have on the Spratlys. But Senator Santiago warns that wrong wordings
in any new law could also undermine the established claim of the
Philippines on Sabah.
What should the Philippines do now?
The consolidated bill passed in the House in
December 2007 would redefine the baselines of the Philippine
territory to include the Freedom (Kalayaan) Group and the
Scarborough Shoal off Zambales, and extend its exclusive economic
zone by 240 kilometers.
Sen. Santiago also warned that a Philippines
that is self-declared to be an archipelagic state would suffer
environmental and marine pollution from ships freely entering its
archipelagic waters.
The Philippines would then have less powers to
discipline foreign vessels polluting our seas than we have now as a
nonarchipelagic state dealing with ships in its territory.
The Kalayaan Island Group could actually wind up
being defined as another archipelago different from the main
Philippine islands. Santiago said that under international law the
Spratlys could be termed “other islands” (not a separate
archipelago) that falls under Philippine sovereignty. Under the
UNCLOS, the Philippines as an “archipelagic state” would have to
be defined as having two archipelagos—the Kalayaan Group and the
main Philippine group of islands.
The bills now in Congress that would include the
Scarborough Shoal in Philippine territory could pose problems
because international law does not recognize the drawing of
archipelagic baselines as a method of claiming territorial
sovereignty.”
How should we prove our claim to Scarborough
Shoal then?
Use the principle of “effective occupation
under international law,” the senator recommends. The military
exercises, the construction and use of a lighthouse, enforcement of
laws against foreign vessels and nationals that have illegally
entered the area, and many other political and administrative acts
are proofs that the Republic of the Philippines has been effectively
exercising sovereignty over Scarborough Shoal.
|
